i think it is called scalia -- ginsberg, -- scalia/ginsberg. i have not seen that opera. justice barrett: i have not either. >> apparently, he was imprisoned for excessive dissenting in the opera. [laughter] and she rescues him by coming through a glass ceiling, which she breaks. they have a wonderful relationship, the two of them. when you joined the court in 2020, i wanted to ask you if there were some justices that reached out and work more welcoming than others? you mentioned justice kavanaugh, getting this together for you. how was it when you join? justice barrett: i joined during covid, the pandemic was still raging and people had not fully come back to work. when i was sworn in, i would not say that anyone of my colleagues was more welcoming than another, they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. and when i was sworn in by the chief justice, justice breyer was filling in in boston, it was a problem for him until he could travel without greater exposure. those in washington came to swearing and weight and not sit in a big conference room and everybody had mask

i think it's called scalia-ginsberg. she explains since he was the senior justice his name came first. i have never seen the opera. justice barrett: i have not seen the opera, either. professor stein: apparently in the opera he was imprisoned for excessive dissenting. and then somehow she rescues him coming through a glass ceiling which she breaks. so they a wonderful relationship between the two of them. when you joined the court in 2020, were there some justice that is reached out and were even more welcoming than others? you mentioned justice kavanaugh put on this new orleans dinner for you. how was it joining the court? justice barrett: i joined the court during covid. the pandemic was still raging. and people hadn't fully come back to work. although when i was sworn in -- i wouldn't say that any one of my colleagues was more welcoming than another because they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. when i was sworn in by the chief justice, justice pwrao*euer was still -- bier was still remote -- breyer was still

i think it's called scalia ginsburg and she explained. i've never seen it. >> i have not seen it either. >> apparently in the opera he was imprisoned for excessive dissenting [laughter] and somehow she rescues him coming through glass ceiling. [laughter] so they had a wonderful relationship the two of them. when you joined the court in 23 i wanted to ask you were there some justices that reached out and with who world more welcoming than others. you mentioned justice kavanagh. how was it joining the court? >> joining the court doing -- duringfu covid the pandemic was the region and people had fully come back to work it when i was warned and i wouldn't say that anyone of my colleagues were more lovely than the other because they were all equally wonderful. when i was warned by the chief justice justice breyer in boston, was a problem for him and you couldn't travel without greater exposure. those in washington came to the swearing in and we sat in a big conference room and everyone had masks on and spread out and distance in the conference

and i think that after your appointment, to the court you were quoted as saying that justice scalia initial philosophy was also your judicial philosophy. it's also true and how would you describe that philosophy. >> will justice scalia was very well-known for his commitment to both regionalism and constitutional interpretation. and the statute and i would say that he could boil both of those judicial philosophy santa the proposition that law and control and ensure the philosophy and show that commitment. and so i think there would be very little difference between us if you ask about the central role of the judge, to adhere to the text in the text is a clear answer. and do not impose one's own views on the law to respect the law. and we certainly have some differences and styles for example, you know he is a fantastic writer with very well known for being a fantastic writer. and he was what he could be like i was saying, when you're at a restaurant and you're looking at the menu and otago spicy it is and i have three jalapenos to one of the number more of a one jalapeno. judge than

professor at the antonin scalia school of law here in the united states.cholar at the coachella policy forum. professor, let's get to it. why are you being lectured in israel constantly about the rules of law and proportional city when you're up against a terrorist enemy that wants to blow out every jew in in in israel? yeah, it's a little bit obnoxious when president biden comes over and he said many nice things, but then he said, of course, don't punish gazans. civilians don't engage in collective punishment as if israel would ever do such a thing. biden has an interest. he needs to support israel. you know, at least openly and somewhat to not lose the jewish vote in the elections. but he also wants to keep this fight contained and keep israel from going all the way and actually taking out its enemies because hamas, the people who perpetrated this horrible massacre, are simply puppets of iran. and of course, biden's middle east policy, like obama's, has been focused on making nice with iran. he transferred $6 billion to iran. he is lifted sanctions on ir

[laughter] but it was also very meaningful and the reason i say justice scalia gave me a gift. he called me and said, would you take this opinion? it was a divided vote. he was the assigning justice. and he said, i think that this is like a good one for you because i think in it you can say something about not just any particular issue, i mean, the legal rule in question was a pretty obscure patent rule. not just about any particular issue but about how you think about doing law. and in particular how you think about the doctrine of star desighs and how important precedent is to a functioning rule of law system. and he was totally right about that. it was -- you know, stair desigh sis is a little bit of a counterin-- stare decisis is a counterintuitive idea. even when we think the rule of law is wrong, we're still going uphold it. because we've been upholding it for a lot of years. and some people say, like, why? and this opinion was all about why. about why even when -- i mean, i think most economists and a lot of lawyers thought in this rule of patent law was wrong and the op

was written to know what my colleague -- i don't want to say, he who shall not be named, justice scalia, what question he was answering exactly, just because of the way the thing was written. i'm not quite sure what question he was answering exactly. i think i will just put him to the side, but i will try to answer the question sort of. >> so, can the @rjcourt, can congress regulate aspects of what the supreme court does? >> i think two opposite -- not opposite, you know, but there are two polls that seem pretty clear-cut to me. the first is of course congress can regulate various aspects of what the supreme court does. congress funds the supreme court. congress, historically, has made changes to the court's structure and composition. congress, historically, has made changes to the court's jurisdiction, and indeed, there is a provision in the constitution that says something like the supreme court shouldn't have appellate jurisdiction under regulations that congress provides. you know, or i'm missing the exact words, but it actually talks about congress having a rule for our jurisdictio

they gave rise to the great scalia-ginsberg opera and much more.nd justice ginsburg did have that great movie made after her, so maybe we are continuing in that great tradition. peter: let's hear from jack from davenport, iowa. go ahead with your question. >> what would holmes think about the internet, where people are looking for rooms full of people so they can get them all stirred up, and then they yell fire to stir up a lot of anger? beck's great question, so important, the question gets to the heart of homes incitement test. in the abrams decision he not only said that speech had to be strongly protected, but he endorsed a version and it was articulad that speech could only b restricted ift's intended to and likely to cause imminent violence. so it's not enough t say something that someone may be, possibly in the future might react badly to, it has to be intended to create imminent violence in the violence has to be imminent and serious. the supreme court embraced that in the brandenburg case in 1969, decades after holmes articulated it. but h

some of the most part of the story is the funny of discussion, monica court, the, the ssl, just the scalia to do. you want to do, you do a ton of money. i mean, i've seen where you you have what's like, what's your, what's your 1st name? what else already? well yes. yeah . so most mika lives, let's do see so much about your 3, broad jump the way. yeah. with just the phone. great. you might have too much we met a woman on the street and came out and spoke to this. i'm not sure what all she had said, but i could, i could feel that she was just heartbreaking her and, and my heart went out or i, i think i remember is telling, or i'm sorry that my country's doing this to you. i think uh ukraine is terror state and that uh, nato is also this insane. there's glass everywhere in bricks and been part of people's homes. they're being destroyed and my country keeps giving money to this class. and just being able to wake up one day and you're just used to this because it's just occurring so much assume the we can see here here just marks. so i suppose it's a cesar so or something else. came from this

justice breyer at harvard law school, justice scalia at the university of virginia law school. the court has had plenty of academics and i am not sure that in terms of -- you can tell from those people, they are very different kinds of judges, very different in the decisions they made. so there are all kinds of academics in the world. i'm not sure academic background leads to a particular kind of judge. i will tell you the way i think it has affected me most. it is not the scholarship idea or the academic environment generally. it is the experience of teaching and the way that has affected me is when i write my opinions, i try hard to figure out how i'm going to explain things to people. because the law is complicated and often arcane, especially when i started the court and i was a junior just as i got these super technical opinions to write, the thing that junior justices tend to get. and -- but i wanted ordinary people to understand them. i wanted not just legal specialists to understand. i wanted nonlawyers to understand and you don't want to dumb them down so that everybod

texas, and a friend pastor john hagey and a truex pert -- expert on international law, a professor at scaliaool of law. what are the rules of law? we'll get to that. but before we do, you are seeing protesters. in capital building. we know who they are. and they have ignored it. i'm spend my opening talking about who these people are. are they just happening or just wokism? no. it is much worse. believe it or not we have been infiltrated. hamas network in america. and over at george washington university they wrote about it, they put a paper out this month, program on extremism. hamas network in america. the media are not looking at this. it available to everyone. i want to tell you 'it because that what i you will know about it. the months following 1987 formation of hamas muslim brother hood branches and off shoots activated themselve to form the newly formed organization. according to international documents in 1988 head of p palestine section of muslim brotherhood traveled to united states for the formation of palestine committee of the muslim brotherhood in america, in 1992 ethe muss vi

court is thinking about se delegation principles there you would have to look at history d as justice scalia emphasized in his concurring opinion, if you look across theourse of history from 1789 o it has it has been in the aroiations context marked by very bad delegations of authority to the executive branc t spend within the bounds set byongress. in the very first appropriation laws were structured lik this one and a sense of providing execiv could spend up to a cap set by congress. i think the claims what you think about the argument response our present is under the aropriations clause but if mechaniz a a course to get more broadly about these issues the other doctors could come into play. >> general, could i take you back to the light of questioning for you jtice gorsuch's talking about? in your replyri on page 18 you discuss a standing appropriatio o up to a quadrillion dollars for the president to fd -- besides the army. so just on this question of whereou outer limits arend what theory we might use t say there are some limits, what do yo want to say about that sort of statute? wouldh

the two candidates for speaker is jim jordan and antonin scalia w -- steve scalise.one has the backing of the frontrunner with former president trump confirming on truth social this morning that he will be endorsing jordan for speaker of the house. >>> now to a major reversal from the biden administration. announcing it is waiving 26 million construction laws. the only reason this is happening now is because congre congress allocated money during the trump administration and they have to use the money that way. >>> and bears fans watched with heavy hearts after mourning the loss of dick butkus. he played his entire career with the bears. he made eight straight pro bowls and had number 51 retired by the bears and uninducted in the hal of fame in '79. frank, the team said this win is for him. back to you. >> you know, dick butkus was a legend in chicago. i used to live there. condolences to his family. jes jessica, great to see you. >>> as we head to break on w "worldwide exchange," we have the today's number of $17 billion as the consumer stat. that's a jump of spendi

he serves as director of scalia law school center. it's great to have you here. mike tobin who is showing us the evidence that we can show of the tortures the mutilation to what happened in israel. now you have possible ground incursion coming in gaza. you have lot of talk including at the u.n. security council about legal issues that israel needs to follow. how do you look at this? >> the bodies are not yet buried of these people who were burned alive, children burned alive in front of their parents. parents burned alive in front of their children. their bodies are not boweried in the united nations are accusing israel of war crime. it's not true. israel will go into gaza. the hamas government that runs gaza and is responsible for this invasion. in any war, civilians will get killed. it's a tragic consequence. it's why it's so evil to start a war like hamas did. israel only attacks military targets. under international law, something you're not going to hear a lot this from the u.n., there's a rule called proportionality. when you attack a military target you ca

gave me a gift and giving me the warhol dissent, i was given a gift earlier in my career by justice scalia, the assigning justice on a case called campbell. it was a case that was a little bit combined fun and meaning. it was fun because it was about a spider-man toy. it was a patent case, but the patent was on the glove that you put on your hand and go like this. web thread would come out. if i tell you all spring, my clerks were having -- the fact that it was about this comic book object enabled me to make lots of funds. the end line of the opinion is something like with great power comes great responsibility. but it was also very meaningful. the reason i say justice leah gave me a gift, he called me and said would you take this opinion? it was a divided vote grade he was the assigning justice and he said i think this is a good one for you because i think you can say something about not just any project or issue. i mean the legal rule in question was a pretty ups your patent rule. not just about any project or issue but about how you think about the law and in particular, how you think a

just as steve sc steve scalia sd about moving forward. move forward to protect this country. the economic security of this country is hanging by a thread. we must be successful. i think our conference can get it done. that is what monday will be about. and if we accomplish this, america will see great things. i think our conference, it is still a young conference, can learn to work together. rachel: congressman i've been talking to a lot of republicans around the country. they are disgusted by what is happening. they feel like republicans should be united now more than ever. especially the only place where we actually -- republicans actually have a majority. some of them are concerned this chaos and lack of coming together on this leadership issue is potentially jeopardizing maybe even the presidential election. >> rachel, what you say is exactly true. we have not presented o ourselvs to the american people in a way that they would want to see us be successful in them believing they could be successful with us being a majority party. it i

in the 1990's the late justice scalia delivered a bone chilling speech about the holocaust. he said we will have missed the most frightening aspect of it all if we do not appreciate that it happened in one of the most educated, progressive, cultured countries on the planet the germany of the 1930's proved a society can play all the values they want on education and credentials, and elite institutions. but, if we lose our moral compass, these things do not just become useless, they become dangerous. we need moral clarity, so let's start today. let this echo across every college campus in america, a federal subsidy for your education is not a right. it's a privilege. [applause] a visa so students can study here is not a right. it's a privilege. you want to know what a right is? the right of jewish americans to walk down the street in safety. that's a right. [applause] do you want to know what a right is? the right of jewish students to study in their own college library without being suggested that you hide in an attic. that's right. we have seen the footage of israel's suppor

scalia's has been seen as a possible successor to california's kevin mccarthy, who was ousted last week. jordan has the backing, president trump and some far-right house members and tomorrow the gop will hold a candidate forum. and then wednesday morning republicans will hold a secret ballot election to officially nominate their selection. robert f kennedy junior says he's leaving the democratic party and will now seek the presidency as an independent. he also spoke on what he described quote, the rising tide of discontent in the united states and stated his interest to make a quote, new declaration of independence from corporations, the media and the 2 major political parties. political analysts are now questioning whether this 3rd party can a city could be a spoiler for either of the trump or biden campaigns. a live look outside as we talk about our forecast right now as we can see what's happening along the golden gate bridge, light traffic on the state. a lot of people had today off radar did not though today and we had a little bit of sun popping through beginning of the show. not

scalia's can only to lose 4 votes on the house floor in order to win the speakership. that vote was supposed to take place this afternoon but has since been postponed. for now in washington, raquel martin, back to you. some developing news from the east bay, the search for a new oakland police chief keeps getting a little bit more complicated >> a committee that's part of the oakland police commission says it has narrowed down a list new candidates to 7 people. it does include the former police chief armstrong. but that committee did not follow the proper process and the official finalists have not yet been determined and it did turn out that the committee jumped the gun by releasing a list of candidates because the application process isn't even over yet. the candidates haven't even been interviewed. regina jackson is on the oakland police commission, but is not part of the committee that released the finalists. and she's very critical of the committee's process. >> i do not know how you can come up with final candidates before the end of an application process. that

both scalia and jordan, they didn't vote to certify the election of the president of the united states that means that they wanted to throw out the votes of a president-elect, he got more votes than anybody else in the history of america. what do you do with that? that's not a party that supports democracy. >> sam, i want to play for you some sound that we just heard from the president. he was at the white house obviously touting on the latest jobs numbers out earlier today that we're going to get into later on in the show, but he was asked about the fight for speakership, and here's what he had to say. >> whomever the house speaker is, i'm going to try to work with. they control half the congress, and i'm going to try to work with them. there's some people i imagine it's going to be easier to work with than others, but whoever the speaker is i'll try to work with. >> who can in your reporting -- and you alluded to this a little bit earlier, be worked with at this point, or is this just an optimistic president right now looking at a very difficult moment for the body of the house? >> i

united on the israel front the got to talk about ukraine for the gotta talk about funding of steve scaliahe got jim jordan hud's a shakeout for catherine? >> it would be nice have a functioning house right of sewing honestly part of the conversation. i hope that i feel it cannot be foolish to help this to make the decision easier. would make people get in line to line up behind the speaker. jordan has a lot of support. and again he biden ministrationn says there's been years of support for israel and it is ironclin hisironclad will see hd it is to exit from that when israel is respondent's also been years long deference to a written attempt to negotiate with them on this new deal. that every turn you don't even have to go to the 60 billion you can go straight to the hundreds of millions poured straight into a glass of the state department self and try to get this money there was like we would advise administration this is going to probably cracks within the administration these are linked to documents on paper. we don't even have to go to that mind batman to know we have encouraged this.

we had justice breyer, we had justice scalia. we had our own doug emhoff. the person who appeared year after year was justice ginsburg and justice ginsburg, her husband was on our faculty and she really cared so profoundly for this community. every year, whenever we invited her, she would come. we decided to name this lecture series in her honor. so the first year she spoke and then the second year she got president and secretary of state clinton. so we're trying to think, how do we keep up with this incredible tradition? and we figured it out round of applause for speaker pelosi. [applause] she doesn't really need an introduction. the 57th speaker of the house of representatives. she made history in 2007 when she was the first woman elected to serve as speaker. she made history again in 2009 when she regained the speakership, the first person to do that in six decades. as speaker, she led the passage of really transformative legislation including the american recovery and reinvestment act in 2009, the affordable care act, which she was the architect and th

well, i agree with justice scalia. i'd rather see a document etched on mt. rushmore than, a document that changes with the perceptions of nine unelected ten. you'd life tenured in. sadly we are out of time. well, thanks so much for. taking this deeper dive into early life at the bradley foundation. we devote a lot of our energies to sustaining and restoring the very of civil society that was evidence during coolidge's times. and i think we can draw some conclusions about what we need to do, take us back to a better place, a return to civility. government and self. where we can. as coolidge said in the late 1920s, it would be hard to imagine better surroundings for the development of a boy than those which had almost a century. we agree. good morning. oh, good morning.

senate majority leader chuck schumer, minority leader mcconnell, ambassador herzog to majority leader scalia'sdible leaders assembled. i wish we were meeting under better circumstances. but it is an honor to stand with you in solidarity today. [applause] ten days ago we watched in horror and heartbreak calculated and barbaric attack against the state of israel and the jewish people. hamas terrorists intentionally targeted slaughtered israelis in their homes fired thousands of rockets at civilian areas, decimated entire communities including neighborhoods. i have personally visited kidnapped women and children young people and seniors were now being held in gaza in harrowing conditions. let me reiterate without hesitation that hamas must be decisively defeated for the good of israel, for the good of the palestinian people for the good and for the good of this world. [applause] [applause] 2013 as many of you know have the opportunity to represent the eighth congressional district in brooklyn one of the most diverse districts in america. as some of you know as ted knows historically as the ninth

i thinking about some delegation principles there you would have to lookt history and as justice scalia emphasized inis concurring opinion, if you look aoss the course of history from 1789 on, it has it has beenn the appropriations contextard by very broad delegations of authority to the executive branch to spend within the bounds set by congress. in the very first appropriation ws were structured like this one and a sense ofroviding executive could spend up to a cap set by congress. tnk the claims what you thin aut the argument response our present is under the appropriations clause but i mechanize as a course to get more broadly about these issues the other doctors could come into play. >> general, could i take you back to the light of qstning for your justice gorsuch's talking abt? in your reply brief on page 1 you discussed a standing appropriation of up to a quadrillion dollars f t president to find -- besides the my so just on this questio o where your outer limits are and what theory we might use to say there are some limits,ha do you want to say about thator of stute? would that

join me now director of scalia at law school center for the middle east and international law professorank you so much for being here. we have heard it so much from so many leaders. president of turkey, the latest to weigh in today accusing israel of war crimes. what do you make of the way leaders around the world and in the west in particular are responding here, what should they be doing in your view? >> it should be supporting israel's right to defend itself israel is fighting completely in accord with the law of war against an enemy which forces israel to have civilian casualties by using civilian as human shields the world should also be telling egypt to open its border with israel. >> the egyptians have the border at the southern end of gaza. they could open them. they could allow all of those refugees from the fighting to go into egypt. >> that is correct. every single conflict ukraine, iraq, afghanistan generates and millions of refugees to go to europe, to go to america to go to neighboring countries records we all remember the scenes of so many people from ukraine flooding int

[applause] thank you, senator schumer and mccullough, leaders scalia and jeff is all the other electedas for championing the protection and secured of american jews during these troubled times and throughout your career. your tireless efforts to combat anti-semitism, you hated and violent extremism are an inspiration to us all. [applause] and please pass along our thanks to president biden for standing so solidly with israel during this troubled time. [applause] i must thank noa for your bravery in the face of true evil. for yourr bravery to travel here to israel to stand -- from israel to stand with us today and to show the world the strength and resilience of the israeli people. thank god you're here with us. [applause] [applause] >> and finally i would be remiss if i did not thank all of you for joining us here today. we began this morning with a reminder that we gather not only to express our solidarity, but also to take action. this evening a delegation of 50 conference of presidents leaders and jewish federation leaders will travel from washington, d.c. to israel too meet with th

i would also add on the disclosure comment with scalia who said in 2010 for the opinion for my part ido not look forward to a society that thinks to the campaigns anonymously hidden from public scrutiny and protected from accountability of criticism. if that doesn't resemble the home of the brave so there's been an indication why the senator and senator collins and bennett and a number of the rest of us drafted a bill that had the ability to look at this and in anarrow fashion but also allw for satire and the like and i did find i went over and told senator warren some of your points interesting when we get beyond the ones that would be banned which ones the disclaimer applies to and that we may want to look at that in a careful white so we don't have every ad it becomes meaningless so i did appreciate those comments. with that, i'm going to go to senator also off because he has to leave and then senator welch who has been here for quite a while and to senator bennett even though he does represent the largest state in the nation and former secretary of state so hopefully that order wi

justice scalia in clinton said the conitionality of such appropri has never seriously been questioned. so if tt's really the core argument that you're making, not like the others 22 different things that come together in thisarcular statute to create a unicorn, but that seems like a muche fundamental argument and one that's been decisively rejected by our history. >> so two responses. first, that's not the core of f the argument ethic of i don't think it's been decisively ed by history. i think the problem when you combine a delegation the executive to pick his own appropn in proper duty subject to a number that is like it's almost never been hit. the problem with a comon of factors is because it uniquely essentially gives away the appropriations power. if you can do that for one agency, you can do for every agency then congas can effectively -- >> can we sort of, i meanhi is $0 million and this is a rounding error in the feral budget, honestly. $600 milli has up to 00illion. i mean, you sayh, it's impossible to meet it. the cfpb is a new agency and ably it's mandatory programs are go

in the 1990's the late justice scalia delivered a bone chilling speech about the holocaust.he said we will have missed the most frightening aspect of it all if we do not appreciate that it happened in one of the most educated, progressive, cultured countries on the planet the germany of the 1930's proved a society can play all the values they want on education and credentials, and elite institutions. but, if we lose our moral compass, these things do not just become useless, they become dangerous. we need moral clarity, so let's start today. let this echo across every college campus in america, a federal subsidy for your education is not a right. it's a privilege. [applause] a visa so students can study here is not a right. it's a privilege. you want to know what a right is? the right of jewish americans to walk down the street in safety. that's a right. [applause] do you want to know what a right is? the right of jewish students to study in their own college library without being suggested that you hide in an attic. that's right. we have seen the footage of israel's support

read what scalia wrote in heller, please.ight now. your lies are causing people to die. because it spreads through the voting population, it spreads to state legislatures. again, i will say you grew up in mississippi, i grew up in mississippi, alabama. we grew up around hunters. this lie that somehow, oh, this is going after somebody's ability to hunt. no it's not. you're talking about shooting varmints with an ar-15? no. the ar-15 was designed to blend things. please stay away from a blender, because you're going to hurt yourself and people around you. a blender has a very specific purpose. a bowling ball has a very specific purpose. the ar-15 is not to shoot varmints, it's not to shoot deer, it's not to shoot pheasant. it's to hunt human beings. that's why it was created. so these lies that come up, somehow this is impacting the second amendment. they've obviously never been in the same churches talking to people who hunt. they also ignore the fact that the nra used to be about gun safety. it used to be about gun training.

even if you disagreed with her on the law, she was a member of such good friends with antonin scalia. they showed us together what it was like to disagree without being disagreeable. i think about that a lot in this moment, sort of the way that she conducted herself and made her points. lessons she had learned from her mother she told me. so i just think in this moment look to unlikely friendships. people who disagree but actually work together. >> probably be a better place if more people did. it was a great interview. >> thank you. >>> after nearly three decades an arrest has been made in tupac shakur's shooting case. does this close the book in one of the biggest unsolved murders? we're going to discuss next. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don'